Search form

How to Ruin a Perfectly Good Relationship

The second behavior that predicts divorce with over 90% accuracy, according to John Gottman's research and the experience of most couples' counselors, is stonewalling. Different from an occasional timeout to calm down or collect your thoughts, stonewalling is absolute refusal to consider your partner’s perspective. If you listen at all, you do it dismissively or contemptuously.

The common songs of the stonewaller are:

“Just leave me alone…”

“Do whatever you want...”

“End of conversation…”

“Stop talking...”

“Get out of my face…”

“That’s enough…”

“I’ve had it!”

The other divorce-predictive behaviors – criticism, defensiveness, and contempt - are gender neutral, i.e., men and women do them more or less equally. Stonewalling, according to the research of Gottman and others, as well as the experience of most couples' counselors, is far more likely to be a male thing. When women stonewall, it’s typically a function of temperament – they’re shy, inhibited, or introverted. More commonly, it’s a learned behavior – engaging in conflict or emotion-laden conversation has exposed them to put-downs or abuse in the past.

Stonewalling is more natural to males. In general, males - of all social animals - have a more rapid arousal level – stonewalling is a way of shutting out stimulation that spikes arousal. They also have a smaller corpus calossum, the tissue that connects the brain’s hemispheres and facilitates communication between them. It’s easier for males to cut off information from the emotional part of their brains when things get hot, a practice they begin as little boys.

Of course, cultural reinforcement plays a large part, as the icon of the “the strong, silent male,” reinforces stonewalling.

Men are less likely than women to know when they stonewall, because it seems so natural for them. A sure sign that a man is stonewalling is if he believes his partner nags him. That means he’s not listening. The nagging partner is an unheard partner.

Frustrating vs. Painful

The experience of being stonewalled tends to be different for men and women. Men who are stonewalled feel frustrated – their goal of resolution is blocked by the stonewalling. But the experience is downright painful for women who are stonewalled, as they are apt to feel isolated – a sense that no one cares about them. To understand the effects of stonewalling on most women, a man need only think of how bad humiliation feels. That’s how isolation feels to his partner, which is why she tries so hard to break through the stone wall

Aggressive vs. Defensive Stone Walls

In aggressive stonewalling, the stonewaller knows that the silence, cold shoulder, and emotional isolation hurt his partner. He stonewalls to gain leverage or power. This is a common tactic in battering relationships, in which the more powerful partner systematically controls or dominates the less powerful one.

In defensive stonewalling, conflict seems overwhelming to the stonewallers. It seems that their only choice is to shut it out (stonewall) or crush it with aggression. So shutting it out seems the better of the two. Of course, treatment teaches them that there are other choices, such as emotion regulation, engagement, and connection.

Looks Different on the Outside

While stonewalling can look aggressive, mean, or childish from the outside, if feels very different on the inside. The defensive stonewaller feels like he’s trying to protect himself. He can also think that he’s protecting his family. Not only have I observed this countless times in my clients, I experienced it my personal life. For about 10 years or so, before becoming a therapist, I regularly stonewalled my wife when things got hot. I was afraid of my anger, having grown up in a severely violent home. I never wanted my wife or daughter to see that kind of rage or know that kind of chaos. In truth, I never had that kind of anger, but there was always the fear.

I had to learn, as all stonewallers need to do, that we need to step outside ourselves to see our behavior more objectively. We stonewall to avoid feeling inadequate. We’re convinced that we’ll fail if we try to engage - fail as communicators and, more important, as husbands and boyfriends.

Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it. Thus the more we do it, the more it seems that we need to do it.

The trick in overcoming feelings of inadequacy is to realize that everything we’ve ever done (that required a certain level of skill), we were inadequate at doing when we first started. The discomfort of inadequacy motivated us to learn to do the task, at which point we gained a feeling of competence and mastery. We can use feelings of inadequacy in love in the same way, as motivation to learn how to be better partners and parents.

I now understand that we sometimes just need time to think things over ... my wife does this regularly, and until it was explained to me I was ... yes ... frustrated ... but I would not judge her "inadequate and unlovable" as would you.

I have followed your blogs consistently and while I appreciate your perspective ( which is why I kept reading) I also find your blogs consistently sexist which is why I have made the decision to not follow them anymore. Just a heads-up on what you might want to consider in your own self-evaluation.

I don't think stonewalling can be attributed to any particular sex. I used to stonewall in a previous relationship, because my ex partner tried to penetrate my boundaries. I tried to explain my position, but he wouldn't listen so I ignored him when he continued to push, expecting me to acquiese. In my case stonewalling was an act of self-defense not one of inadequacy.

I think this is a great article. It gave me some really good insight. I'm not sure how it's 'sexist.' People take offense so easily anymore.

I am confused by the line "Like all avoidance strategies, stonewalling only proves that we are inadequate and unlovable, or else we wouldn’t need to do it." Can that be said in a different way or does it mean exactly what it says?

I don't think stonewalling proves someone is inadequate or unlovable but for me it does prove that they're inadequate at responding to me in a productive manner and yes, as a woman it is humiliatingly, emotionally painful--particularly when one has stopped pushing and prodding and has done everything as positively and 'by the book' as possible.

Thank you for this balanced discussion. I read elsewhere that it is up to the woman (who research shows is often the "nagger" while the man usually stonewalls) to solve the problem. It is the woman who needs to stop nagging. Or perhaps to find a better way to present her problem to the man, so that he does not stonewall. I found that possibly a little bit sexist (and strangely written by a woman!), while your description seemed fair. I have a question: Is it still called stonewalling if the person engages in discussion but absolutely refuses to acknowledge your point of view, almost as if they cannot hear what you are saying?

In my opinion, someone who adamantly refuses to acknowledge another's point of view is just stubborn or obstinate. I think it can be just as hurtful to have someone respond in that way (especially in an intimate or personal conversation) but I don't think I'd consider it stonewalling--we see such action every day in society, particularly in political discussions! I wish more people would attempt to see both sides of a situation.

I found nothing wrong with this article and as a female found this useful and intriguing and not sexist at all.
It offers logical insight into how men physically are but just like how there is proof that men are more hardwired for sex this does not mean that all men will cheat.
Remember the use of the word MOST not ALL in this article.
And lastly sexist is the last phrase I would use for this article when it is founded with biological and scientific fact.
If someone said most men are physically stronger than most women this would not be a sexist remark, just biological and scientific fact.
It is best not to look at the truth if you want to continue living in ignorance.